They are however recognisably similar and also similar to Gaulish whereas some of the other continental celtic languages are so very different, that some linguists have questioned whether they should belong to the celtic corpus.

We probably do get the name from the Britons, or at least some of them. At the time of Herodotus, Great Britain was known as the Cassiterides, or Tin Islands. Pytheas of Masallia however wrote in the 4th century BC that the inhabitants themselves referred to it as Πρέττανοι or Prettanike, the source of welsh Prydain and goidelic Cruithne. The roman term Britanni comes from Pretanni.

The puzzle about the Nebra disk is that the tin appears to come from Cornwall whereas the Erzegebirge, where the disk was found, is one of the other few sources. It may well be that the areas where tin could be extracted had political connections, in order to control supply, rather than being completely independant. Alternatively, it may be that knowledge of metalurgy was so limited that only a handful of people knew how to exploit it.

The Greek world already knew of Cassiterides from peoples such as the Phoenicians so what you write above is very probably true. We can't quantify the size of the operation but it was obviously big enough for people to talk about it in the Med.

I would not say that what Celtic-speakers chose to call themselves is insignificant. But we need to ask the right questions about it. We have chosen to identify various peoples as Celtic on the basis of their language, just as we identify other peoples as Germanic, and yet others as Slavic on the same grounds. In all cases these names were selected because at some point in time some of the speakers of said languages identified themselves or were so identified by others in this way. There is a connection. But to expect the peoples of the past to consistently identify themselves in the way that we have chosen to identify them is to misunderstand the relationship between past and present, and the nature of self-identification.

English is the common language of the United States of America, but its inhabitants most emphatically do not identify themselves as English. By the Roman period Celtica had come to be synonymous with Gaul. Some British tribes might have been reasonably happy to be identified as Gauls - those most recently arrived from Gaul. They were happy enough to be labelled Belgae. As for those who were viewed as indigenous at the time of the Roman conquest - they would probably have thought the Romans mad to call them Celts i.e. Gauls, though Caesar thought them similar to Gauls, "who call themselves Celts in their own language". They were the British - the painted people - or the Brigantes or the Parisi or whatever. There is no point in people all over Western Europe having the same name for themselves.

I would not say that what Celtic-speakers chose to call themselves is insignificant. But we need to ask the right questions about it. We have chosen to identify various peoples as Celtic on the basis of their language, just as we identify other peoples as Germanic, and yet others as Slavic on the same grounds.

Koch makes the point that neither the Greeks nor the Romans used the term Keltoi or Galatae to describe the Britons, terms which were, as you point out, used to describe other groups. It is not so much that the Britons didn't use it. However, he only states that it might be significant. He doesn't say that it is.

The Germanic speakers used such terms, Walhs, Wends etc but only to describe those speaking a different language along the linguistic borders. Whilst we have Walhs in Belgium, in the Alps and in Britain, the Yrum and Scottas are beyond the Walhs. It may be as simple as that, once across the border, once into Walh speaking territory, then group names, rather than lingusitic names, were used.

. It may be as simple as that, once across the border, once into Walh speaking territory, then group names, rather than linguistic names, were used.

That I think is certainly part of the story. I wish it were that simple though! What people call themselves will vary over time as well as geography, and migration muddies the waters. I cover the confusion over the Celts in Identifying the Celts. I too make the distinction between internal and external identification.

I would not say that what Celtic-speakers chose to call themselves is insignificant. But we need to ask the right questions about it. We have chosen to identify various peoples as Celtic on the basis of their language, just as we identify other peoples as Germanic, and yet others as Slavic on the same grounds. In all cases these names were selected because at some point in time some of the speakers of said languages identified themselves or were so identified by others in this way. There is a connection. But to expect the peoples of the past to consistently identify themselves in the way that we have chosen to identify them is to misunderstand the relationship between past and present, and the nature of self-identification.

English is the common language of the United States of America, but its inhabitants most emphatically do not identify themselves as English. By the Roman period Celtica had come to be synonymous with Gaul. Some British tribes might have been reasonably happy to be identified as Gauls - those most recently arrived from Gaul. They were happy enough to be labelled Belgae. As for those who were viewed as indigenous at the time of the Roman conquest - they would probably have thought the Romans mad to call them Celts i.e. Gauls, though Caesar thought them similar to Gauls, "who call themselves Celts in their own language". They were the British - the painted people - or the Brigantes or the Parisi or whatever. There is no point in people all over Western Europe having the same name for themselves.

Tacitus also mentions the similarity of the Britons to the Gauls!Tacitus on the Origin and Character of the Britons

Forming a general judgment, however, it is credible that the Gauls seized the neighbouring island. One sees here their sacred rites and their religious beliefs; even the speech does not differ much; there is the same boldness in seeking dangers, and the same shrinking from meeting them when they are present. The Britons show more savageness, as those not yet civilized by a long-continued peace. We have been given to understand that the Gauls, too, were formerly conspicuous for their fighting; sluggishness, however, entered with ease, and bravery was lost together with liberty. The same thing has happened to those of the Britons who were formerly conquered, while the rest remain as the Gauls were.

Tacitus also mentions the similarity of the Britons to the Gauls!Tacitus on the Origin and Character of the Britons

Yes, don't think anyone here disputes that celtic languages were spoken in Britain at the time of Tacitus. Before that Caesar writes in Gallic Wars about what is both known and unknown about Britain and about the cooperation between the two. He is a primary source for our knowledge of druids, something which appears to be peculiar to Britain and Gaul. At least, I am not aware of druids existing in other celtic speaking areas.

I have always felt it is pretty clear that the Greeks took a name of one tribe or group of tribes that contained the Celt name, I strongly suspect this from the tribes in Atlantic Iberia of that name, and extended it to the rest. I doubt they actually thought of themselves as having any collective name like Celt ANYWHERE. So, I think whether or not the isles Celts called themselves Celts is irrelevant. Its a very lame point IMO and is of absolutely no significance.

The following is something I posted awhile back on another thread, but I think it bears repeating.

Classical authors sometimes referred to the inhabitants of the British Isles in the context of discussing the Celts, where the clear implication is that they also regarded them as members of that same ethnos.

For example, in writing about the Celts, both Diodorus and Strabo quote Poseidonius as follows:

"The women [of the Celts] are as large as the men and as brave. They are mostly very fair-headed when they are born. The tribes of the north are extremely ferocious. The Irish and the British are cannibals. They used to be known as Cimmerioi; now they are called Cimbroi. They captured Rome and plundered Delphi and ended by dominating a great part of Europe and Asia. They mixed easily with the Greeks and this section of them became known as the Gallograeci or Hellenogalatai." (Dio. 5.32-3; Str. 4.43, as quoted in David Rankin's Celts and the Classical World, p. 78.)

Parthenius of Apamea (1st century BC) related the Greek myth of the origin of the Celts as descendants of "Keltos", the son of Heracles by "Keltine", the daughter of King "Bretannos". Interesting choice of name for that king, if classical authors regarded the inhabitants of the British Isles as something other than Celtic.

Much of what we know about the Celts is due to what has been preserved in medieval Irish and Welsh stories and legal codes, literature that scholars believe passes down an oral tradition of much greater antiquity. That literature matches very well what many of the classical Greek and Roman authors had to say about the Celts of the Continent.

I have always felt it is pretty clear that the Greeks took a name of one tribe or group of tribes that contained the Celt name, I strongly suspect this from the tribes in Atlantic Iberia of that name, and extended it to the rest. I doubt they actually thought of themselves as having any collective name like Celt ANYWHERE. So, I think whether or not the isles Celts called themselves Celts is irrelevant. Its a very lame point IMO and is of absolutely no significance.

I agree completely Alan. The Italics came into being in the same way - the Greeks encountered a southern tribe that called themselves the "Itali" and the rest is history.

In Irish the word 'Gael' means to have the 'Gaelge' (Irish language) as far as I know this is as ancient as the language itself. I think there is a connection between the German Teute (as in Teutonic) and the Irish word Tuatha (the h is silent and softens the t) and means people. The Teutons and the Cimbri are recorded as German tribes by the Romans. Cimbri has connected to the Welsh Cymru (?) thought to mean something like 'brothers in arms'. The 'Teu' in Teutonic has been suggested as coming from Tue the Germanic god of war amongst other things. These sound more like descriptions that could be applied loosely not as names proper. There has been a lot of talk about Tribal names being linked to places. So if 'the valley people' moved up the mountain are they still called 'the valley people'?

In Irish the word 'Gael' means to have the 'Gaelge' (Irish language) as far as I know this is as ancient as the language itself.

It is, but Gaeilge is Early Modern Irish derived from Middle Irish Gaoidhealg itself from Old Irish Goídelc. From this root we get:

Irish: GaeilgeManx: GaelgScottish Gaelic: Gàidhlig

Some authors make the claim that Gaeilge is related to latin Gallus, the roman term for a Gaul, but it is a misnomer as it would have to be Goídelc that would have to be related to Gallus, being the older form and no linguist has established this.

On their own, many germanic and celtic words, particularly names, can be hard to tell apart etymologically, eg. the german name Theoderic, ruler of the people and Tudor, from welsh Theodore, from Greek Theodoros via latin Theodorus meaning a gift from God. Some authors, such as Jones, have claimed that welsh Tudur, from Tewdrig, 6th cent. king of Glywysing, is the same as Theoderic but it seems that it was Gregory of Tours who interpreted the name Theoderic, as in the Goth Theoderic the Great, as having the same meaning as Greek Theodoros. Hence welsh took that meaning rather than the sense of ruler of the people as interpreted by Jones.

I have always felt it is pretty clear that the Greeks took a name of one tribe or group of tribes that contained the Celt name, I strongly suspect this from the tribes in Atlantic Iberia of that name, and extended it to the rest.

The term Keltoi may refer to a tribe but may also be an etic term describing a type of culture. Its etymology is uncertain.

We first hear about the Keltoi from Herodotus who recalls Hectateus' account that they lived at the head of the river Ister, which from its description is probably the Danube, near the city of Pyrene, which is not located but which is described as being beyong the Pillars of Heracles. He says that the Keltoi live next to the Kynesians.

I doubt they actually thought of themselves as having any collective name like Celt ANYWHERE. So, I think whether or not the isles Celts called themselves Celts is irrelevant. Its a very lame point IMO and is of absolutely no significance.

Not whether they called themselves Celts but whether the Greeks or Romans called them Celts.

You have written above:

"it is pretty clear that the Greeks took a name of one tribe or group of tribes that contained the Celt name, I strongly suspect this from the tribes in Atlantic Iberia of that name, and extended it to the rest."

If what you say is true, why wasn't the term applied to the inhabitants of Britain? It is probably true only some of the time and in some instances where it is applied, it may have also been wrongly applied.

Koch writes that our 'notions of the Celts might be more seriously defective'. If the Greeks took the name of the Iberian Célticos and applied the term to all speakers of a similar language, why did they not do the same in Britain? We have the same etymological difficulties with the Gauls. The Gala in Galatia has the same root as Gaul but Galicia in central europe may or may not contain the Gala root. It may be derived from Lithuanian Galas, end or peak in reference to the Carpathians. In Iberia, Galicia may be a reference to Gaul but may also be a reference to the celtic root cala, having the sense of a watercourse. As with the term Keltoi, the etymology of Gala is uncertain. One proposed etymology even suggests that it means no more than neighbour and does not tell us anything about that neighbour.

Koch is referring to our 'notions of the Celts'. He is not denying their existence. Rather he thinks the tendency to say, this group must be called celtic because ... and this group cannot be called celtic because ... may be flawed. Without knowing why a group has a gala or kelt element in it, his point is valid. We simply end up with puzzling histories. Bren123 has already pointed out that Tacitus describes the language of the Britons as being similar to that of the Gauls but Tacitus also describes the language of the Aestyan nations who dwell "upon the right of the Suevian Sea" who have "the same customs and attire with the Suevians" as having a language that "more resembles that of Britain". Would we conclude from this statement that the people who gave their name to Estonia were Celts?

Bren123 has already pointed out that Tacitus describes the language of the Britons as being similar to that of the Gauls but Tacitus also describes the language of the Aestyan nations who dwell "upon the right of the Suevian Sea" who have "the same customs and attire with the Suevians" as having a language that "more resembles that of Britain". Would we conclude from this statement that the people who gave their name to Estonia were Celts?

There's a difference because when Tacitus mentions the similarities between the Gauls and the Britons,it isn't just the language he's comparing!

There's a difference because when Tacitus mentions the similarities between the Gauls and the Britons,it isn't just the language he's comparing!

That's right whereas the Aestyans are described as having the same attire and religion as the Suevians.

However, Caesar states that, "by tradition" the Britons as "were born in the island itself" and that "the maritime portion by those who had passed over from the country of the Belgae for the purpose of plunder and making war; almost all of whom are called by the names of those states from which being sprung they went thither," (Gallic Wars V Ch 12). He goes on to explain that the maritime regions differ from the inland regions, "The most civilized of all these nations are they who inhabit Kent, which is entirely a maritime district, nor do they differ much from the Gallic customs. Most of the inland inhabitants do not sow corn, but live on milk and flesh, and are clad with skins." So, according to Ceasar, who is silent on the language of those who live in the interior, the similarity with Gauls is limited to the maritime regions.

This makes sense if one thinks of celtic speakers spreading from europe into Britain and Ireland, but tells us nothing of the inhabitants of the interior and of course it doesn't tell us when these events are supposed to have happened. If the Parisii of the Arras Culture are anything to go by, this tribe, who share the same name with a tribe in Gaul, it was in the 5th cent. BC. But, this contrasts with their neighbours the Brigantes, who share their name with a tribe in Ireland. The Brigantes of the north of England show much continuity with the bronze age. Although, by the time of Tacitus, they are thought to have been Celtic speaking, we don't know if they spoke a pre celtic language at the time of the bronze age. This area contains many river names which do not appear to have either celtic or germanic roots.

The term Keltoi may refer to a tribe but may also be an etic term describing a type of culture. Its etymology is uncertain.

We first hear about the Keltoi from Herodotus who recalls Hectateus' account that they lived at the head of the river Ister, which from its description is probably the Danube, near the city of Pyrene, which is not located but which is described as being beyong the Pillars of Heracles. He says that the Keltoi live next to the Kynesians.

Caerleon in SE Wales was named Isca Silurum by the Romans, Isca after the name of the river (it's now called the Usk) and Silurum from the local tribe to differentiate it from other similar sounding places.

According to Wikipedia the name Isca came from Brithonic for water which is also the derivation for whisky.

The Brigantes of the north of England show much continuity with the bronze age. Although, by the time of Tacitus, they are thought to have been Celtic speaking ..

Naturally, since they have a Celtic name. As do the other tribes of the British Isles by the time we have tribal names. We can push that back to the earliest known names of the British Isles both collectively and individually which takes us back centuries before the Roman Conquest. But the crucial evidence for the argument that the Celts arrived in the Bell Beaker period is that this culture spread all over both islands and that there was cultural continuity thereafter. The same cannot be said for the Iron Age.

Naturally, since they have a Celtic name. As do the other tribes of the British Isles by the time we have tribal names.

Not so fast :-) Jackson lists 38 personal and tribal names in the north of the British Isles, 16 of which he claimed were clearly or probably celtic and 22 which he describes as 'not certainly celtic at all'. There is room for manouvre on your 'as do the other tribes'. Katheryn Forsyth takes Jackson to task on his 22 in Language in Pictland.

6 of Jackson's tribes are Creones, Caereni, Caledonii, Vacomagi, Veneciones and Taexali. The nature of Forsythe's argument is that the pre brythonic language of Britain was Pretenic but that Pretenic was a celtic type language. Here she disagrees with Jackson who simply makes the claim, 'not certainly celtic'.

The idea of an early lost celtic language being supplanted by brythonic makes a lot of sense to me and would also explain the problems of attempting to see a clear evolutionary path from pretenic to brythonic. The latter may not have evolved from the former. It may be a later import.

Also, the etymology of names like the Brigantes and Epidii are contentious. The Brigantes may simply mean dwellers of northern hills and be entirely etic. We have no idea if it is what they called themselves. Worshipers of Brigantia is only suggestion.

That's really a different subject and is quite involved. I've only ever looked at the distribution of *apa placenames as far as that is concerned. No, the list I refer to is in Cameron's English Place Names which I don't have to hand. From memory though it places hydronyms like the Colne in the pre celtic list. Others included, Tees, recently moved off the celtic list, Tyne, Clun, Hodder, Tame also recently removed off the celtic list but still disputed. Don and Ouse you will probably know about and the disputes too.

Caerleon in SE Wales was named Isca Silurum by the Romans, Isca after the name of the river (it's now called the Usk) and Silurum from the local tribe to differentiate it from other similar sounding places.

According to Wikipedia the name Isca came from Brithonic for water which is also the derivation for whisky.

Thanks, thats interesting. The Ister mentioned by Herodotus by the way flows into the Black Sea, hence the identification with the Danube.

The modern welsh word for water is dŵr and although I don't know what the primitive welsh word was, Old Irish uisce means water. As you say, it's where we get whisky from, iskie bae in 1580.

I've seen the claim in your wiki link that Usk is derived from brythonic but given that modern welsh is dŵr and the roman name was Isca, it sort of makes me wonder if the territory of the Silures spoke a different type of celtic, possibly goidelic. Unless of course brythonic also had a similar word.

This makes sense if one thinks of celtic speakers spreading from europe into Britain and Ireland, but tells us nothing of the inhabitants of the interior and of course it doesn't tell us when these events are supposed to have happened. If the Parisii of the Arras Culture are anything to go by, this tribe, who share the same name with a tribe in Gaul, it was in the 5th cent. BC. But, this contrasts with their neighbours the Brigantes, who share their name with a tribe in Ireland. The Brigantes of the north of England show much continuity with the bronze age. Although, by the time of Tacitus, they are thought to have been Celtic speaking, we don't know if they spoke a pre celtic language at the time of the bronze age. This area contains many river names which do not appear to have either celtic or germanic roots.

Which is what I was trying to say that they weren't speaking a Celtic language in the Bronze age,well,ar least not in Northern Britain.As for the tribal nmae itself;This from Wikipedia:

-while another probably Celtic tribe named Brigantii is mentioned by Strabo as a sub-tribe of the Vindelici in the region of the Alps